Tip-in Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Flat Colorectal Neoplasia 10mm or Larger in SizeTip-in versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for flat colorectal neoplasia 10 mm or larger in size
- Other Titles
- Tip-in versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for flat colorectal neoplasia 10 mm or larger in size
- Authors
- Noh, Soo Min; Kim, Jin Yong; Park, Jae Cheol; Oh, Eun Hye; Kim, Jeongseok; Ham, Nam Seok; Hwang, Sung Wook; Park, Sang Hyoung; Ye, Byong Duk; Byeon, Jeong-Sik; Myung, Seung-Jae; Yang, Suk-Kyun; Yang, Dong-Hoon
- Issue Date
- Jul-2020
- Publisher
- SPRINGER
- Keywords
- Colon; Rectum; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Neoplasm
- Citation
- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, v.35, no.7, pp.1283 - 1290
- Indexed
- SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
- Volume
- 35
- Number
- 7
- Start Page
- 1283
- End Page
- 1290
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/191428
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00384-020-03604-z
- ISSN
- 0179-1958
- Abstract
- Purpose A modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, Tip-in EMR, was recently introduced to enhance the complete resection of colorectal neoplasia (CRN). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of Tip-in EMR for flat CRNs. Methods From January to September 2018, conventional or Tip-in EMR was consecutively performed for 112 flat CRNs >= 10 mm in diameter. Tip-in EMR was performed when en bloc snaring was impossible with conventional EMR or when a lesion was inadequately lifted owing to a previous forceps biopsy. We retrospectively collected the clinical, procedural, and histologic data of the conventional and Tip-in EMR groups and compared the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and complications between the two groups. Results Among 112 flat CRNs of 80 patients, conventional EMR and Tip-in EMR were performed for 74 and 38 lesions, respectively. The median lesion size was 12 (10-27) mm. Tip-in EMR was superior to conventional EMR in terms of en bloc resection (94.7% vs. 77.0%, p = 0.018) and histologic complete resection (76.3% vs. 54.1%, p = 0.022). There was no difference in postprocedural bleeding between the two groups; however, overall adverse events, including bleeding and postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome, were more frequent in the Tip-in EMR group. Conclusions Tip-in EMR is a feasible technique for flat colorectal lesions >= 10 mm and is superior to conventional EMR with respect to en bloc and complete resection rates. The safety profiles of Tip-in EMR and conventional EMR should be compared via large-scale prospective studies.
- Files in This Item
-
Go to Link
- Appears in
Collections - 서울 의과대학 > 서울 내과학교실 > 1. Journal Articles
![qrcode](https://api.qrserver.com/v1/create-qr-code/?size=55x55&data=https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/191428)
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.